About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8
. so these issues should be seen as, it ties in with other foreign policy agendas. tom, now at georgetown university, has written very adequately on foreign policy and religious freedom. >> i think we have time for one more question. perhaps in the front row here, we have a hand. we have a microphone, microphone approaching, approaching. and we'll have just a moment left. >> hi eric and all of you. i was the president of the first north korea freedom coalition. i just wanted to mention something about the state department, kind of a little history. just, we have an infiltration of islamist sympathizers. and i'm actually concerned about that. [inaudible] just something broke yesterday. john kerry's son-in-law, which didn't come out in the vetting process, his son-in-law is an iranian. and iranian americans with very close world is in iran. and that is, it's a breakdown of the vetting process. and so i will ask you all, are you concerned about this? >> i would have to know more about the iranians. most iranian americans of course our strong opponents of every regime i don't kn
security and foreign policy issues as opposed to his very robust domestic agenda? jon: lindsey graham was on with his last hour and pretty critical about the job the department of homeland security -- which, after all, is an arm of the administration -- did in the tsarnaev case. want to play a clip. >> my problem with this administration is their policies are failing. they do not believe that we're at war. they ignored signs and warnings from libya. we haven't had one person detained as an enemy combatant for intelligence-gathering purposes since he's been president. jon: is this starting to resonate with voters, do you think? >> i don't know yet that we've seen that. but we could see it over time. i think it pretty much depends on how the public views the president's handling of these incidents, and do they think that the president is keeping them safe. as we saw under president bush, you can have a horrific attack on the home lambed, and if you respond -- homeland, and if you respond in a way the public feels you should respond, they like your response, they're going to feel good ab
's investment in foreign-policy is national security insurance. there is nothing foreign about foreign policy anymore. smartcan make the small,. w vestments upfront and avoid more costly conflicts and greater burdens down the road. , we'vepast few months seen developments underscore the state -- stakes for having a strong and -- strong american presence in the world. that was a positive step toward stability in the volatile region of the world where we need partnerships. the committee is more than immersed in suyyruiaia. we have treated millions to humanitarian relief -- we have provided millions to humanitarian relief. i expect we will talk about syria somewhat today. having returned from beijing and north koreathe issue took center stage, we are reminded once again that america is the guardian of global security. we should be proud of that. one not turn our back on keys nor will we hesitate what we need to do to defend our allies. if budget is an analyst patient of our values and priorities -- this budget is an illustration of our values and priorities. i have a record of wanting to do defi
issues in difficult american foreign policy. when do we get involved in an atrocity going on within someone else's country. that's a very tough question. would we have intervened in germany in 1938 if we knew what was going on. i think we all like to say we we d have and if we could, would have stopped it. it presupposes and the implication is we have a right do that anywhere in the world if there's an atrocity going on. that a u reflect on little bit? >> thank you, senator. defined one t significant kpant issue -- of militaryal basis intervention in the country. certainly every nation has a themselves in t their own history of self-defense. but to answer your question, you of the dimensions of his that you laid out, as did amplify on psey who cuts back ations and on the quell, when do we do this. what basis? we canthere a frame work follow? y answer is you start with the realities. these are both imperfect different situations. out, i dempsey laid think, rather clearly some of he dimensions of each of the countries in that region. self-interest. you have others who have self-inter
foreign policy discussions. we're not a country that's in the mood to go invade anyone anymore. the tsarnaev brothers have been in the united states much longer. they were really immigrants and the fact that they come from chechnya, a place that's been at war with russia has in some ways softened the response. so far at least, i think we have not seen as much anti-muslim kind of talk as there was after 9/11. >> i think you're absolutely right. there's been some. there's been some of that almost knee jerk reaction, which obviously is a problem, but nothing like what occurred immediately after 9/11. isn't that right? >> yeah. i also think -- there are a billion muslims in the world. muslims come in every shape and color. in the american imagination, we have almost racialized what it means to be muslim. the fact these guys are from chechn chechnya under mines the level of racist reactions. to some degree part of what the anti-muslim sentiment after 9/11 was not only based on religion, but it was based on the idea of race and ethnicity. >> thanks very much for coming in. >> thank y
that is shi w fight that is also part of what our foreign policy tries to change with the historic rule of law to help with the justice system to create accountability. >> that we're still spending -- sending money if they were stealing and. >> i did not make that decision and i will certainly review any program we are engaged in now and if you have information of what we do now let me know immediately but one thing. all of this that we do senator paul is 1 penny on the dollar. i go through long list of things that we invest in i will give you an example we have stopped countless plots against our country, which had the fbi not cooperated and the cia and other entities and had not worked with the justice system's and interpol and the other things we work with we never would have done it. americans would have died and blown up and but for the discovery of the christmas bomber which came through these efforts we made our country safer. i have to tell you for the penny on the dollar will still ma t men even know yes something is abused just as it is abused of almost evygoernment. >> win the war b
overall policy of how is the foreign affairs budget, the state department budget would be prioritize in the entire region as opposed to just focusing on one country since they seem to be working together ever before? >> well, thank you very much, congressman meeks. i am very, very hopeful. i am planning a trip shortly to both colombia and brazil and other countries hopefully as time permits. we've had some issues, obviously, with argentina over some debt issues, repayment, so forth, which we need to work through. but, look, western hemisphere is our back yard. it's critical to us. too often countries in the western hemisphere think that the united states doesn't pay enough attention to them and on occasion it's probably been true. i think we need to reach out vigorously. we plan to. the president will be traveling to mexico very shortly. other -- i can't many countries. he will be going. i will be going, other high-level visits. we'll try to do everything possible to try to change the attitude of a number of nations where we've had obviously sort of a breach in the relationship ove
characterized the treatment as torture when used by foreign governments. the c.i.a. recognized this in an internal review and realized many of the interrogation techniques employed were contrary with the policy the u.s. has taken regarding human rights. the united states is understandably subject to criticism when it criticizes another nation for engaging in torture and then justifies the same conduct under national security arguments. there are those that defend the techniques like waterboarding, stress positions, and sleep deprivation because there was the office of legal council which issued a decision approving of their use because they defined them as not being torture. those decisions have since been repudiated by the o.l.c. it's sefment even in it's peap it relies not only on a narrow definition of torture but also on factual representation about how the techniques would be implemented that later proved inaccurate. this is important context as to how the opinion came about, but also as to how policymakers relied upon it. based upon a thorough review of the available reco
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8